AN ANCHORWOMAN AND MILITARY SNIPER FOR THE N.A.F - YULIA KHARLAMOVA

Yulia Kharlamova works as anchor woman for ANNA News and is a freedom fighter of Novorossiya People's Militia.

https://www.facebook.com/NordikaNovorossiya

https://www.facebook.com/YuliaKharlamovaofficial

INTERNET SOURCE: http://ukrainewarlog.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/violent-kiev-clashes-provocation.html

PETER HITCHENS ABORTION INTERVIEW

 

Peter Hitchens on abortion

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.getfrank.co.nz/editorial/media/peter-hitchens-abortion-interview

Peter Hitchens, New Zealand's Green Party has released a policy which supports the relaxation of abortion. Is this a wise decision?

Wise from whose point of view? Killing one person for the benefit of another is not a matter of wisdom or folly, but one of right and wrong. A society which permits this, in principle, is  scrapping the whole Christian moral principle, a change with vast consequences for the society that permits it.  If that is what it wishes to do, then it should be clear about the huge and revolutionary issue that it is.

What is the situation in Great Britain with abortion? Is it easy or hard to get one there?

There are about 180,000 legal abortions in Britain each year. I think it would be fair to say that doctors are usually prepared to sign forms saying that the birth of the baby would be a threat to the mother's mental health. It is alleged that they have done so without actually meeting the woman concerned. Provided gestation is less than 24 weeks, abortion on demand, performed in the taxpayer-funded National Health Service, which is free at the point of use, more or less exists. The word 'easy' seems wrong, as one must assume and hope that the mothers involved find the decision difficult.

Many pro-choice activists say "we can't tell a women what to do with their body." What would your response to that statement be?

Two bodies are involved. Conception is the point at which life begins. No other such point can be objectively established. The embryo will, if healthy and not interrupted, develop into a human person without further intervention. It contains, from that moment, all the coding and characteristics which will remain with it throughout life.  Except in cases of rape, where some opponents of abortion believe that it might be permissible (and it was permissible under English law before 1967, following the Aleck Bourne case of 1938), sexual intercourse is voluntary. The fact that it can lead to conception is not exactly a secret. Women are free not to have sexual intercourse, and that is indeed an important freedom. But the freedom to control one's own body surely ends at the point where in doing so one injures or destroys another body.

This is really an argument about sexual morality. In a monogamous and self-restrained moral system, unwanted pregnancy is of course possible, though with modern contraceptive methods it is far more easily avoided. In a generally unrestrained moral system, it is likely to be far more common. Unrestricted abortion makes a non-monogamous society more likely, and easier to manage.

Who do you believe suffers the most from an abortion?

The abortee.

The Green Party MP Jan Logie says "Decriminalisation will reduce the stigma and judgement that surrounds abortion, and enable abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy, which is safer for women." What is this stigma which she speaks of? And do we have a right to judge someone who has an abortion?

I cannot tell what other people mean, beyond what is unambiguously obvious from their words. They will have to explain themselves. It seems to me that any stigmas surrounding abortion have almost entirely vanished in modern post-Christian countries such as ours. But I have only once visited New Zealand, and that very briefly, and as a tourist, so I cannot comment on the precise state of moral opinion there.

We decide, when we choose our laws, to make certain actions crimes. In doing so, we are informed by our moral code, if we have one, and (in the case of Christians) by a belief that God has made certain unalterable laws which we cannot alter, which we are personally obliged to obey, which we would want others to obey because we believe them to be profoundly and unalterably good, and which we seek to be as widely applied and obeyed as possible. In a free society we cannot impose them upon others except through laws constitutionally arrived at. If the agreed law regards abortion as a crime, then we have the power to judge those who break the law. As I say above, if we decide to be the sort of society which licenses the killing of unborn babies, then we alter the moral character of our society, and those individuals who cleave to the former law may campaign to reinstate it, but cannot demand its enforcement on others.  People are entitled to oppose or support such changes.  Supporters and opponents are making a large moral judgement.  But it muddies the water to personalize it. This isn't an argument about being beastly to women who have got pregnant without meaning to. It is an argument about morals.

Can an argument be made supporting abortion ie It's not living and just a fetus?

It can, but is self-serving and unscientific (see above) , and so it would eb unwise for anyone to rely on it. In general, in human history, the classification of human persons as sub-human or non-human( such as the use of the word 'foetus' ) is a step towards dehumanisation and murder.

Do you know of any live abortions which have been shown on television?

No.

Is Kermit Gosnell a murderer?

Such questions must be decided by independent juries who have heard all the evidence in any case.

Why is society so ready to support abortion but condemn the death penalty?

Because, by and large, belief in the immortal soul has disappeared (though this is intellectual fashion rather than the result of any objective discoveries on the subject). The death penalty is really only tolerable if it is a step towards the murderer's earthly  repentance and eternal salvation. If a man has a life but not a soul, then other men, who also believe they have no souls, will naturally regard his execution as intolerable.  Similarly, they will regard an unborn baby, which has no social relations, speech or other visible characteristics of humanity as being of no great worth, since they recognise humanity mainly in outward, rather than inward things. If you regard each baby as being made in the image of God, named and known by Him since the beginning of the world, you take a different view.

How many times have you had a debate about abortion with other individuals or groups?

Dozens.

Peter Hitchens thank you very much for your time.

MEET THOMAS FRIEDMAN [ARTICLE ON PRO-LIFE ~ JULY 20, 2014]

NOTICE: The following article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on them.

PAGE TITLE: The New York Times

ARTICLE TITLE: Why I Am Pro-Life

DATE: October 27, 2012

AUTHOR: Thomas Friedman

AUTHOR INFORMATION: Thomas Lauren Friedman (born July 20, 1953) is an American journalist, columnist and author. He writes a twice-weekly column for The New York Times. He has written extensively on foreign affairs including global trade, the Middle East, globalization, and environmental issues and has won the Pulitzer Prize three times.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0 & http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print

Thomas Friedman

HARD-LINE conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he “came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” That came on the heels of the Tea Party-backed Republican Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois saying after a recent debate that he opposed abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would not survive without an abortion. “Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason,” Walsh said. That came in the wake of the Senate hopeful in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, remarking that pregnancy as a result of “legitimate rape” is rare because “the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.” 

These were not slips of the tongue. These are the authentic voices of an ever-more-assertive far-right Republican base that is intent on using uncompromising positions on abortion to not only unseat more centrist Republicans — Mourdock defeated the moderate Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary — but to overturn the mainstream consensus in America on this issue. That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well. 

But judging from the unscientific — borderline crazy — statements opposing abortion that we’re hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion. 

In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.” 

“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax. 

The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society. 

Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change. 

Now that is what I call “pro-life.” 

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 28, 2012

A phrase in this version of the article has been changed to “every fertilized egg in a woman’s body” from “in a woman’s ovary.”